PBEM: New proposal - Page 2

techumseh · August 19, 2002, 23:52

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
techumseh, the categorization of the forum has nothing to do with whether or not the forum is dedicated to the site. the new plans(magazine) doesnt take the site outside civ2. and as i said if something like this does happen we will evaluate the situation again. i believe we have proven that we dont treat hosted sites as our own property

placing it under civ2 will make it easier for new people to notice it and use it. leaving it under HS ruins the whole point of merging the two forums...

I'm not worried about you and Dan treating SL as your own property. I AM worried about trying to build up interest in the site with the forum reduced in status to just another Civ2 category. While that concern is partly alleviated by the propsed new name, the location is also important. HS denotes a distinct community, which I'm sure is the reason the Spanish Civ community wants to stay under HS as well.

Waku · August 20, 2002, 08:48

AFAIK only the pbems played at the Sp.Forum have somthing to do with all this

Mercator · August 20, 2002, 11:13

I really don't see how having HS in front of the forum name instead of Civ2 can change a community.

Isn't the entire point of the SL to help people build scenarios? If the SL keeps hiding in its little corner I don't see how this can be properly achieved (except for the little established community that probably needs very little help anymore anyway, or can simply mail the people they think can help... since everyone seems to want their projects secret these days

).

The point is to attract visitors, creators to be more precise!

I'm with MarkG on this.

techumseh · August 20, 2002, 13:23

OK, if that's the concensus, I withdraw my objections.

The ANZAC · August 20, 2002, 14:55

I do have to stand with tcehumseh on this. This forum is taking on Civ2 Creation NOT becoming it singly. I think it should remain here because there's more to it than just Civ2 Creation, as has been pointed out before.

MarkG · August 20, 2002, 15:08

Quote:

there's more to it than just Civ2 Creation

what percentage of the site and the forum are not about civ2 scenarios??

The ANZAC · August 20, 2002, 23:22

Right now, you are somewhat right, but St Leo is trying to expand the range with EU2 and what not. And I think Civ3 scenario creation might be welcome at SLeague, though it never comes here *runs away from stones and burning effigies*

MarkG · August 21, 2002, 02:23

for the third time

Quote:

if and when the focus is shifted more towards other games, we'll act accordingly

lets do what's best for SL now instead of imaging what would be best for a different SL in the future....

Mercator · August 21, 2002, 07:29

And even if SL takes on more than just Civ2 right away, at least the Civ2 community will actually know about it.

It's just a name anyway, so what's the problem?

MarkG · August 25, 2002, 05:14

as i see no further objections, the following change will happen tomorrow

Quote:

the SL forum is merged with the Civ2-Creation one, moved under the civ2 category and renamed to Scenario League / Civ2-Creation

klesh · August 25, 2002, 11:54

hrmpf. ok.

The ANZAC · August 25, 2002, 14:08

*boo* *hiss*

Henrik · August 25, 2002, 14:48

Mercator · September 2, 2002, 16:32

So, how does everyone feel now this forum is under the Civ2 heading?

The ANZAC · September 2, 2002, 16:38

It feels great

MarkG · September 2, 2002, 16:38

patience

St Leo · September 2, 2002, 22:51

It feels as though there's a party in my forum and everyone's invited.

H Tower · September 3, 2002, 00:18

MarkG is just trying to tighten his grip of power on the website, he just can't stand the idea of someone placing content on the page without his before hand say-so

MarkG · September 3, 2002, 02:08

huh? where on earth did you get that?

H Tower · September 3, 2002, 10:25

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
huh? where on earth did you get that?

i made it up

note the -->

MarkG · September 3, 2002, 11:44

humour is best when it has some relation to reality.
when it's totally baseless it's also totally tasteless...

Chris 62 · September 3, 2002, 13:01

I should add that to my sig in place of the current Mark quote.

MarkG · September 3, 2002, 13:34

i wonder if that's a good thing

St Leo · September 3, 2002, 19:20

Chris62, H Tower, and MarkG, please stop spamming in my forum.

Case · September 3, 2002, 19:44

Ban them!

H Tower · September 3, 2002, 20:48

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Chris62, H Tower, and MarkG, please stop spamming in my forum.

who was it that was bumping threads from more than a year ago?

St Leo · September 3, 2002, 23:02

Ban them!

That goes for you too, Case.

who was it that was bumping threads from more than a year ago?

A wise and serene moderator.

Chris 62 · September 4, 2002, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by St Leo
Chris62, H Tower, and MarkG, please stop spamming in my forum.

That's Mark and Dan's forum.

Did you ever get the SL database active Leo?

St Leo · September 4, 2002, 14:58

That's Mark and Dan's forum.

Dan may not spam here either.

Did you ever get the SL database active Leo?

Yes, Mr. Underrock, I did. Do you want to be my Database Monkey?

Kull · September 4, 2002, 22:17

Well Markos, your evil plan is finally coming to pass. The Scenario League stands on the verge of being bundled off to the dying Civ2 forums section there to slowly fade away. Because it IS the kiss of death for the Scenario League, as you well know. Comments like "it's only there until you guys broaden the focus" are pure puffery. Anyone who wants to discuss Civ3 Scenarios is NEVER going to show up in the Civ2 section.....so it doesn't matter what we're called if that's where we reside.

So now let's get to the heart of the matter - the Indictment of the Scenario League. Hauled up by the bailiffs we stand before MarkG, our judge and jury, accused of the most mortal of crimes, Irrelevancy! Three specific articles buttress this charge:

Article 1: Concentration upon Civ2
Article 2: Failure to develop CtP scenarios
Article 3: Failure to evolve to Civ3

Heinous crimes indeed, but this humble barrister would like to offer some words in defense - before you pass Sentence upon us.

Of the charges in Article One, "Concentration upon Civ2" we plead proudly and emphatically, Guilty! I offer up no defense, but point instead to Apolyton's own bulging archives of Civ2 scenarios. Look there MarkG, and see those that came before the Scenario League and compare them to all that issued forth in the many years since it's founding. Can CtP offer such a harvest? Civ3? Pick your game and it cannot hold a candle to the output inspired by those who gathered around the flame that was the Scenario League!

As for Article Two, "Failure to develop CtP scenarios", I cry foul sir! This argument, oft bruited against us, is naught but a canard. You know as well as I there never WERE any CtP scenarios. Massively impressive mod-packs, yes - but scenarios ala Civ2? No. You can count on the fingers of your hands the number of true scenarios that issued from that spare vineyard and the number of great ones is smaller by far. So do not accuse us of failing to deliver what even the Giants of that Game could not.

At last we come to Article Three, "Failure to evolve to Civ3". This is perhaps the most baseless charge of all. We speak of a game that did not allow the placing of UNITS ON A MAP until a little over a month ago! A game that has yet to master the intricacies of the FLAT MAP. Only NOW has Civ3 provided a half decent editor and the basic fundamentals required to build scenarios worthy of the name. The Craftsmen of the Scenario League did not spring fully formed from the ground on day one of Civ2. It was an evolutionary process. It took time.

So consider that before you pronounce our guilt. Before you hurl us into the black bowels of the Civ2 forums. Because then there will be no evolution. There will be no growth. All that will remain is the long, slow slide into oblivion.